Irish Border and Brexit

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

It did but so what? That's SUPPOSED to be ancient history at this stage. It was supposed to bring about a peaceful democratic process, not one which is subject to ongoing approval from any shadowy group of gunmen.

Also, and it wasn't 40 years of conflict.

Depends what you classify as conflict.

I don't really care if you lulled yourself into some nirvana or not. The fact is that a hard border will raise tensions and will bring the issue of partition back to the fore.
I don't have to be a 'frothing at the mouth terrorist' to be concerned about that or to look to the two governments not to stand idly by...again...and let it happen.

Would anyone let the Germans build up their military might and invade Poland and appease them again for instance?

First we never had a hard border. It would have been a lot harder to have had cross border smuggling and "the troubles" if we had a 2-3m high border police style security fence along the

Ah, so when people talk about a 'hard border' they are talking about a 2-3 mt high fence? Who knew.

steddyeddy

The simple fact is that a hard border contravenes the Good Friday Agreement. It's perfectly acceptable to say a border would be unacceptable. The EU seem to agree. The fact is that this will need to be slrted before any trade agreements are in place.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

glad you got that all off your chest.
Have you any practical ideas other than suck it up we are not as important as we think we are?

Well, your suggestion is to "refuse to operate" a border, so if it's all the same to you, I don't think I'll subscribe to your definition of what constitutes a "practical idea".

Are Coveney and Varadkar wrong? Is the No Border campaign wrong?

I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm suggesting that you get used to the idea that you might not get what you want.

I get it: not having a border on this island is a concept of such earth-shattering importance to you that you suggested we seriously consider the possibility of leaving the EU over it. What you seem to have trouble grasping is that we are one of twenty eight countries trying to negotiate the least calamitous outcome to a ridiculous situation caused unilaterally by just one of those countries, and beyond having it recognised that the border issue is an important one to discuss, it's just one of literally thousands.

What do you suggest be done?

I don't know. I can't see a simple way out of it. Like everything stemming from the insanity of Brexit, I can only see a world where literally everyone is worse off.

I mean, sure: the idea of an Irish Sea border is an attractive one, from the tunnel vision perspective of someone for whom there is literally nothing more important in the world than the question of a border on this island. From that particular perspective, the barriers and obstacles to such a solution are mere bagatelles to be hand-waved away.

But I guess as long as whatever solution we arrive at appeases terrorists, it'll be fine. As long as they are the right terrorists.

ED E

EU: EU border must be maintained.
Leinster House: We don't want to pay for a hard border, nor deal with the knock on impact
Westminster: We don't want to pay for a hard border, Feck NI if it tanks their economy
Small players:
- SF: Rubs hands together
- Unionists: Ye will in your arse create a sea border

€€€€s and ££££s are king.

Cost of the trouble from Unionists w/ Sea Border vs Cost of actual border - Whichever is cheaper will win out.

FrancieBrady

You

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, your suggestion is to "refuse to operate" a border, so if it's all the same to you, I don't think I'll subscribe to your definition of what constitutes a "practical idea". I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm suggesting that you get used to the idea that you might not get what you want.

I get it: not having a border on this island is a concept of such earth-shattering importance to you that you suggested we seriously consider the possibility of leaving the EU over it. What you seem to have trouble grasping is that we are one of twenty eight countries trying to negotiate the least calamitous outcome to a ridiculous situation caused unilaterally by just one of those countries, and beyond having it recognised that the border issue is an important one to discuss, it's just one of literally thousands. I don't know. I can't see a simple way out of it. Like everything stemming from the insanity of Brexit, I can only see a world where literally everyone is worse off.

I mean, sure: the idea of an Irish Sea border is an attractive one, from the tunnel vision perspective of someone for whom there is literally nothing more important in the world than the question of a border on this island. From that particular perspective, the barriers and obstacles to such a solution are mere bagatelles to be hand-waved away.

But I guess as long as whatever solution we arrive at appeases terrorists, it'll be fine. As long as they are the right terrorists.

Could you possibly write a post that is not about trying to have a go at how you perceive me? That would be good.

shaunr68

I don't see what the fuss is about. I've driven between Finland and Norway, then into Sweden and back into Norway then taking the ferry to Denmark without encountering a single border post. Sure you might see a sign saying welcome to the EU but that's it. It's seamless and you drive from one country to the other. This is something that is not and will not be an issue and all the fuss is agenda driven.

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

beyond having it recognised that the border issue is an important one to discuss, it's just one of literally thousands.

How many of these thousands of issues have the potential to destabilise a fairly fragile peace in a disputed territory that has emerged from a brutal conflict relatively recently? That's a rhetorical question, no need to try to come up with an answer.

Your glibness is unusual, to say the least.

gitzy16v

Dont often jump in these threads but have to say bringing back a hard border is madness,sure we only got rid of the last one after years of trouble.

Id rather side with the UK on this issue than Germany or Brussles.

I think ourselves and the UK know a hell of a lot more about our situation than any politicians in the EU.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How many of these thousands of issues have the potential to destabilise a fairly fragile peace in a disputed territory that has emerged from a brutal conflict relatively recently? That's a rhetorical question, no need to try to come up with an answer.

Your glibness is unusual, to say the least.

It is just crazy stuff. You mention the possibility of reigniting something that has reignited time and time again on this island and you are a 'dark sinister force' and you are issuing 'threats'???

Glib is not the word to be honest. Wholly irresponsible would be mine.

Junkyard Tom

gitzy16v wrote: »

Dont often jump in these threads but have to say bringing back a hard border is madness,sure we only got rid of the last one after years of trouble.

Id rather side with the UK on this issue than Germany or Brussles.

I think ourselves and the UK know a hell of a lot more about our situation than any politicians in the EU.

The British will understand that a contentious border in Ireland is in not in their interests most of all considering its potential negative consequences. The north is still an enormous sink-hole for HM's Treasury.

Also, the EU is a project that has its heritage in the prevention of conflict so hopefully its main players understand that preventing outbreak of violence, as a result of a spat within the Tory Party that got out of control, doesn't damage the EU 'brand'.

jm08

shaunr68 wrote: »

I don't see what the fuss is about. I've driven between Finland and Norway, then into Sweden and back into Norway then taking the ferry to Denmark without encountering a single border post. Sure you might see a sign saying welcome to the EU but that's it. It's seamless and you drive from one country to the other. This is something that is not and will not be an issue and all the fuss is agenda driven.

Sort of like the situation between ROI & NI at the moment.

All those countries are either EU members and Norway is a member of the EEA. If the UK stays in the single market, there won't be a problem.

gitzy16v

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The British will understand that a contentious border in Ireland is in not in their interests most of all considering its potential negative consequences. The north is still an enormous sink-hole for HM's Treasury.

Also, the EU is a project that has its heritage in the prevention of conflict so hopefully its main players understand that preventing outbreak of violence, as a result of a spat within the Tory Party that got out of control, doesn't damage the EU 'brand'.

Here's hoping common sense prevails.

We are an exceptional case in all this Brexit hullabulloo.

prinzeugen

Red_Wake wrote: »

True, there's no solution that'll satisfy everyone[or anyone for that matter].

Is there any precedent for a customs border between an EU and non-EU country, which works as a "soft" border?

Switzerland, Norway, French overseas territories in far flung parts of the world that are EU members and use the Euro (even a bit of Canada)

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You mention the possibility of reigniting something that has reignited time and time again on this island and you are a 'dark sinister force' and you are issuing 'threats'???

Those who pretend it isn't a possibility are either ignorant of history, or would welcome it, in my estimation. I could say they don't care but people who don't care wouldn't be bothered either way.

ZeroThreat

Ulster is a far away country about which we know little.

Charles Babbage

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Ulster is a far away country about which we know little.

It depends where you are, people commute from Ulster to Dublin every day.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The British will understand that a contentious border in Ireland is in not in their interests most of all considering its potential negative consequences. The north is still an enormous sink-hole for HM's Treasury.

Also, the EU is a project that has its heritage in the prevention of conflict so hopefully its main players understand that preventing outbreak of violence, as a result of a spat within the Tory Party that got out of control, doesn't damage the EU 'brand'.

I am not aware of a single serious politician or public figure North or South who is suggesting in any credible way that Brexit and the imposition of a border will lead to a resumption of violence.

Quite apart from the fact that Western societal views of terrorist violence have changed dramatically since 9/11, the logistical challenge would seem to be impossible to surmount*.



*Unless you are suggesting that all those arms weren't decommissioned and that the command structure of the PIRA remains in place.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not aware of a single serious politician or public figure North or South who is suggesting in any credible way that Brexit and the imposition of a border will lead to a resumption of violence.

Neither am I.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not aware of a single serious politician or public figure North or South who is suggesting in any credible way that Brexit and the imposition of a border will lead to a resumption of violence.

It doesn't have to be said. No serious Unionist politician is saying security force collusion with Protestant/Unionist murder gangs was a fact of life but it was. When are we going to get an apology for it? Do you agree with me that the RUC/UDR should apologise for collusion?

Quite apart from the fact that Western societal views of terrorist violence have changed dramatically since 9/11,

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean.

the logistical challenge would seem to be impossible to surmount.

What logistical challenge are you alluding to?

Unless you are suggesting that all those arms weren't decommissioned and that the command structure of the PIRA remains in place.

I honestly have no clue of either. What I do know is that decommissioning was a farce. The PIRA's most effective weapon was essentially off-the-shelf. It involved intellectual knowledge, practical know-how, and secrecy. You simply can't decommission that try as you might.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not aware of a single serious politician or public figure North or South who is suggesting in any credible way that Brexit and the imposition of a border will lead to a resumption of violence.

Regardless of what I think of Enda - he was a serious politician.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/enda-kenny-risk-of-violence-if-brexit-border-talks-fail-442254.html

I wouldn't expect the political class who allowed northern Ireland to implode before to see what might happen if the people of northern ireland are sold down the Swanee again.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

*Unless you are suggesting that all those arms weren't decommissioned and that the command structure of the PIRA remains in place.

New IRA the 'biggest terrorist threat to state since the Provos'

.......

Mr O’Sullivan said that the threat level from the dissidents in Northern Ireland was severe, which is the second highest threat level. In Britain, it is substantial, meaning there is a strong possibility of an attack. This is its highest level since the Provisionals declared their ceasefire in 1994.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-ira-the-biggest-terrorist-threat-to-state-since-the-provos-35932203.html

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not aware of a single serious politician or public figure North or South who is suggesting in any credible way that Brexit and the imposition of a border will lead to a resumption of violence.

Quite apart from the fact that Western societal views of terrorist violence have changed dramatically since 9/11, the logistical challenge would seem to be impossible to surmount*.



*Unless you are suggesting that all those arms weren't decommissioned and that the command structure of the PIRA remains in place.

It's not about violence. It's about respecting hard won peace. A border violates an internationally binding treaty.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

This thread should really be merged with the Brexit one.

There seems to be a strange presumption that "creative solutions" only applies to the UK side of this bilateral negotiation.

You can see the rest of my thoughts on the Brexit thread.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This thread should really be merged with the Brexit one.

There seems to be a strange presumption that "creative solutions" only applies to the UK side of this bilateral negotiation.

You can see the rest of my thoughts on the Brexit thread.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Not that strange considering the balance of power lies with the EU. There will be customs checks but for several reasons, the onus is on the UK to be creative. Not least because of the economic threat a trade barrier would impose on the North.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's not about violence. It's about respecting hard won peace. A border violates an internationally binding treaty.

There is a kind of dangerous thought process in the south that I see all around me.
It thinks that attitudes stay static. That events have no effect on attitudes.

All it takes (and dissidents are well aware of this as are security forces) is one or two attacks on a customs post or an official and the whole lot will have to be fortified.
Once you begin fortifying you escalate the ill feeling, the tensions and the stakes.

And the cyclical nature of the conflict comes full circle again.

It really is as simple as that, nothing remains 'static', there is a dangerous idea out there that the GFA was a final solution - it wasn't.
Anything that halts it's progress (like the collapse of the executive) or that, as you have rightly pointed out, is anti the spirit of the GFA (and a hard border certainly is) is an extremely dangerous thing.

KyussBeeshop

Many of the worst problems caused by our integration with Europe, have the caveat that the only way to undo many of them is to leave the EU - and then to start from scratch and try again.

The coming border between North and South here, is going to be just another problem to add to all of the others - and it could turn out to be a critical/major one, due to the history of the North.

We're far from the end of the problems that our current integration with Europe will cause - we're predisposed to seeing primarily the positive side of this integration, yet are not at all good at acknowledging the downsides - we're actually encouraged to be pretty dismissive of them, in a "shure we have to put up with everything that happens to us, or leaving the EU will destroy us" type manner.

I believe things are going to continue going downhill, with the positives of the EU being met by increasing numbers of negative events brought about by our European integration - until people seriously start questioning, if we couldn't be better off in the long term (and worse off in the short/medium term) starting-over again, to rebuild parts of the positives that we can, and to avoid all the negatives we now know about.

With this political discussion we have a watershed of the public finally realizing there is going to be an actual border, and that it's likely going to be between North and South - and we may end up sleepwalking into a situation where fresh troubles start up North over this, and none of us know how far that could escalate - that would be a very serious and significant downside, to our EU integration.


Economic down-times are a significant part of the excuse used to present leaving the EU in the short-term, as suicidal - now that many people feel we're in 'good times' again (even if very debatable), then it's worth reintroducing this idea proper, into public thought - and instead of making a reflexive decision one way or the other, yes/no, to instead actually look at and weigh-up the downsides, especially now that this coming border between North/South can threaten to escalate to the point of reintroducing past troubles.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is Coveney right to do what he did at this stage and what should Dublin's position be on this?

My own opinion is that we should, right from the get go, be very very clear that we will not tolerate or operate a hard or soft border on the island.

The minute the U.K. negotiates it's first trade deal, a hard border will have to be introduced be it a sea or land border. And that border will need to be supervised by us. We need to ensure that products coming from the U.K. meet our/EU standards and are in line WTO tariff quotas etc. we need to control Immigration so that we don't become a back door to the EU. Policing an EU border is our responsibility not the UKs.

A sea border is a dream! To operate such a border we'd need to put Irish customs and immigration officers into NI and they would need to have the full range of legal powers to do their jobs. The navy would need to patrol the NI coast line conducting random boardings etc. There is no chance of this happening.

It is nonsense to think for a minute that we can supervise an EU border with cameras when the party on the other side is conducting different trade deals, lowering quality standards, introducing their own immigration policies etc.

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's not about violence. It's about respecting hard won peace. A border violates an internationally binding treaty.

So to be clear which treaty and exactly which provisions of that treaty are you referring to?

Jim2007

prinzeugen wrote: »

Switzerland, Norway, French overseas territories in far flung parts of the world that are EU members and use the Euro (even a bit of Canada)

You are making some very wide generalizations there. To correct just one - we (Switzerland) are not in a customs union with the EU. We have FMOP and bilateral agreements in certain areas, but you still must go through customs on both sides of the border. Although for tourists it's a fairly relaxed affair.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

The minute the U.K. negotiates it's first trade deal, a hard border will have to be introduced be it a sea or land border. And that border will need to be supervised by us. We need to ensure that products coming from the U.K. meet our/EU standards and are in line WTO tariff quotas etc. we need to control Immigration so that we don't become a back door to the EU. Policing an EU border is our responsibility not the UKs.

A sea border is a dream! To operate such a border we'd need to put Irish customs and immigration officers into NI and they would need to have the full range of legal powers to do their jobs. The navy would need to patrol the NI coast line conducting random boardings etc. There is no chance of this happening.

It is nonsense to think for a minute that we can supervise an EU border with cameras when the party on the other side is conducting different trade deals, lowering quality standards, introducing their own immigration policies etc.

Unless it's a 3 or 4 metre wall as suggested by somebody above a hard land border will have exactly the same issues as the ones you outlined above for a sea border.

I am just back from getting something in the south about 3 miles from my home in the south.
In total I crossed the border 10 times.

A land border never worked nor will it work.
Enflamed plenty of people and economically ravaged corridors on either side though.

swampgas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unless it's a 3 or 4 metre wall as suggested by somebody above a hard land border will have exactly the same issues as the ones you outlined above for a sea border.

I am just back from getting something in the south about 3 miles from my home in the south.
In total I crossed the border 10 times.

A land border never worked nor will it work.
Enflamed plenty of people and economically ravaged corridors on either side though.

Brexit itself is a really bad idea, yet the UK government are pushing ahead with it. A hard border in Ireland looks inevitable, it's a really bad idea but the UK government would rather see NI burn than admit that they got Brexit wrong.

It's going to be bad. I'm expecting the worst, tbh.

Junkyard Tom

We just need to 'harden' our airports and seaports - goods/produce that comes from/via the north destined for the mainland goes through more stringent checks.

steddyeddy

The only way a border will work without major consequence is to have a sea border.

murphaph

A sea border doesn't solve all the problems. You have to go much further, making NI a defacto part of the EU.

We (the EU) need to be sure that no hormone laced beef from the US enters the EU via NI. So what? We (who controls this?) prevent a host of prohibited products from entering NI from GB, products that are perfectly legal in GB. It's not as straightforward at all as pushing the border checks back as this is much more about regulations and standards.

View

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

View wrote: »

First we never had a hard border.

Because in practical terms it's impossible.

In practical terms it is very possible.

It is possible on the overwhelming majority of borders around the world and contrary to the opinion of many, our geography doesn't prevent construction of a border.

You can be sure that, if for some economic reason we needed to do it, we could easily build a motorway along what is the border and motorways are a lot more difficult and expensive to construct than border fences and associated crossing points.

We might not like to do it but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

View

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

View wrote: »

First we never had a hard border.

Because in practical terms it's impossible.

In practical terms it is very possible.

It is possible on the overwhelming majority of borders around the world and contrary to the opinion of many, our geography doesn't prevent construction of a border.

You can be sure that, if for some economic reason we needed to do it, we could easily build a motorway along what is the border and motorways are a lot more difficult and expensive to construct than border fences and associated crossing points.

We might not like to do it but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Chester Copperpot

View wrote: »

In practical terms it is very possible.

It is possible on the overwhelming majority of borders around the world and contrary to the opinion of many, our geography doesn't prevent construction of a border.

You can be sure that, if for some economic reason we needed to do it, we could easily build a motorway along what is the border and motorways are a lot more difficult and expensive to construct than border fences and associated crossing points.

We might not like to do it but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

You are forgetting that the entire border runs through areas that don't want a border. The wall or whatever fence wouldn't last more than a few days in most parts.

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

View wrote: »

It did but so what? That's SUPPOSED to be ancient history at this stage. It was supposed to bring about a peaceful democratic process, not one which is subject to ongoing approval from any shadowy group of gunmen.

Also, and it wasn't 40 years of conflict.

Depends what you classify as conflict.

I don't really care if you lulled yourself into some nirvana or not. The fact is that a hard border will raise tensions and will bring the issue of partition back to the fore.
I don't have to be a 'frothing at the mouth terrorist' to be concerned about that or to look to the two governments not to stand idly by...again...and let it happen.

It doesn't matter whether you or I like it, based on the decisions that have been made in London, a hard border is probably on its way or, if we are lucky, a soft border with constant checks on the crossings. It is an international border and there is no point in pretending otherwise.

Whether this causes tensions on the border is not something London concerned itself when making its decisions. They knew it might cause problems and they are already "standing idly by" in terms of coming up with possible solutions. And no they don't care whether that causes problems for some individuals who have a problem accepting their democratic decisions. Gunmen don't get a veto on their decisions and they certainly shouldn't on ours either.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

View wrote: »

First we never had a hard border. It would have been a lot harder to have had cross border smuggling and "the troubles" if we had a 2-3m high border police style security fence along the

Ah, so when people talk about a 'hard border' they are talking about a 2-3 mt high fence? Who knew.

Yes. It is pretty common for a border fence in a low-key situation - just as such a fence would be common around many sensitive commercial or even governmental premises. Typically it is only if some bunch of dopes start making an issue out of it that border fences needed to have ramped up security and escalate in terms of both ugliness and inconvenience.

View

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

View wrote: »

In practical terms it is very possible.

It is possible on the overwhelming majority of borders around the world and contrary to the opinion of many, our geography doesn't prevent construction of a border.

You can be sure that, if for some economic reason we needed to do it, we could easily build a motorway along what is the border and motorways are a lot more difficult and expensive to construct than border fences and associated crossing points.

We might not like to do it but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

You are forgetting that the entire border runs through areas that don't want a border. The wall or whatever fence wouldn't last more than a few days in most parts.

I am not forgetting it.

The democratic decisions of Ireland and the UK are not subject to veto by people in the border area on either or both sides of it.

The UK's decision is to leave the EU, ours is to be an EU member. Unless the UK proves to be extraordinarily flexible in its approach to the border - not something it has shown so far on other issues it is negotiating on - then we have to assume we are dealing with a worst case scenario and plan accordingly. We can hope for a change of heart from London and a softer result but that is ultimately up to them, not us.

Claims that the border fence wouldn't last ten days aren't credible since in such a scenario, the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work.

View

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

View wrote: »

In practical terms it is very possible.

It is possible on the overwhelming majority of borders around the world and contrary to the opinion of many, our geography doesn't prevent construction of a border.

You can be sure that, if for some economic reason we needed to do it, we could easily build a motorway along what is the border and motorways are a lot more difficult and expensive to construct than border fences and associated crossing points.

We might not like to do it but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

You are forgetting that the entire border runs through areas that don't want a border. The wall or whatever fence wouldn't last more than a few days in most parts.

I am not forgetting it.

The democratic decisions of Ireland and the UK are not subject to veto by people in the border area on either or both sides of it.

The UK's decision is to leave the EU, ours is to be an EU member. Unless the UK proves to be extraordinarily flexible in its approach to the border - not something it has shown so far on other issues it is negotiating on - then we have to assume we are dealing with a worst case scenario and plan accordingly. We can hope for a change of heart from London and a softer result but that is ultimately up to them, not us.

Claims that the border fence wouldn't last ten days aren't credible since in such a scenario, the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work.

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

The only way a border will work without major consequence is to have a sea border.

Having Irish Navy boarding parties conducting stop and search operations of the NI coast would not have major consequences??? because that is what a sea border means - we move an international border that we will have to police to mainland UK.

oscarBravo

For all the people to whom a land border on the island is the end of the world as we know it: if it came down to a binary choice, would you choose a border on the island or to leave the EU?

If you even have to pause to think about that one, you're in an awfully small minority.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unless it's a 3 or 4 metre wall as suggested by somebody above a hard land border will have exactly the same issues as the ones you outlined above for a sea border.

We have land borders all over the EU and yes of course they work because unlike the idea of a sea border we police it from our jurisdiction. And yes there are lots of people crossing and recrossing those borders too.

Chester Copperpot

View wrote: »

I am not forgetting it.

The democratic decisions of Ireland and the UK are not subject to veto by people in the border area on either or both sides of it.

The UK's decision is to leave the EU, ours is to be an EU member. Unless the UK proves to be extraordinarily flexible in its approach to the border - not something it has shown so far on other issues it is negotiating on - then we have to assume we are dealing with a worst case scenario and plan accordingly. We can hope for a change of heart from London and a softer result but that is ultimately up to them, not us.

Claims that the border fence wouldn't last ten days aren't credible since in such a scenario, the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work.

I imagine that you have very little understanding of the border region. They can't even get the welcome to Northern Ireland signs to stay in place and they are along main roads. A fence running by through Belcoo or Crossmaglen will not last a week. What is the solution have a solider standing every ten foot in case a tractor pulls large sections of it down. The cost would be horrendous

murphaph

The NI border is fairly unique because the people living either side of it are culturally very close. Parishes straddle the border.

This is in marked difference to any other external EU border, of any reasonable length, that I know of. Typically the citizens on either side of such borders are culturally different (usually even speaking different languages) and naturally suspicious of each other, so the border provides some comfort for both sides.

I think a fence across Ireland is a non starter and I'm sure our EU partners know and accept this. But monitoring of the border will be unavoidable.

munsterlegend

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

I imagine that you have very little understanding of the border region. They can't even get the welcome to Northern Ireland signs to stay in place and they are along main roads. A fence running by through Belcoo or Crossmaglen will not last a week. What is the solution have a solider standing every ten foot in case a tractor pulls large sections of it down. The cost would be horrendous

Couldn't put it better myself. Any type of fortified border on this island will be constantly attacked and anyway impossible to monitor really given the number of passages across. It will become a security nightmare and anyone who says otherwise is living in dreamland.

FrancieBrady

A wall or a fence has not a chance in hell of working.
The 'border' never worked at what it was supposed to do, ever. It's fortification was a sop to unionists but it was lipservice to security nothing more. It only succeeded in enflaming tensions and recruiting for the IRA.

View

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

View wrote: »

I am not forgetting it.

The democratic decisions of Ireland and the UK are not subject to veto by people in the border area on either or both sides of it.

The UK's decision is to leave the EU, ours is to be an EU member. Unless the UK proves to be extraordinarily flexible in its approach to the border - not something it has shown so far on other issues it is negotiating on - then we have to assume we are dealing with a worst case scenario and plan accordingly. We can hope for a change of heart from London and a softer result but that is ultimately up to them, not us.

Claims that the border fence wouldn't last ten days aren't credible since in such a scenario, the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work.

I imagine that you have very little understanding of the border region. They can't even get the welcome to Northern Ireland signs to stay in place and they are along main roads. A fence running by through Belcoo or Crossmaglen will not last a week. What is the solution have a solider standing every ten foot in case a tractor pulls large sections of it down. The cost would be horrendous

What part of "the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work" didn't you understand?

Courtesy of the UK's Brexit decision, we seem headed to a simple binary choice of EITHER we control the border OR we start the process of leaving the EU. That's the scenario we potentially face and one we have to plan for, even if we hope that London will finally come to its senses.

Inquitus

View wrote: »

What part of "the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work" didn't you understand?

Courtesy of the UK's Brexit decision, we seem headed to a simple binary choice of EITHER we control the border OR we start the process of leaving the EU. That's the scenario we potentially face and one we have to plan for, even if we hope that London will finally come to its senses.

Well we are never going to leave the EU in the short to medium term, if at all. The UK wants control over immigration, I would posit that they own the border, not us, I don't care if half of Syria finds its way into the UK via Ireland.

Chester Copperpot

View wrote: »

What part of "the onus would be on the governments to keep ramping up security on the border until it does work" didn't you understand?

Courtesy of the UK's Brexit decision, we seem headed to a simple binary choice of EITHER we control the border OR we start the process of leaving the EU. That's the scenario we potentially face and one we have to plan for, even if we hope that London will finally come to its senses.

You said that a hard physical border is workable. I thoroughly dispute that and say that it is a position borne from ignorance of the geopolitics of the region. A physical border will never work, what would you have the governments do? Commit the bulk of security services to try to secure a fence that will be dismantled at the first opportunity anyway. The people in the region on both sides wouldn't want a physical border so it is not a workable solution. The solution will have to be a lot more discreet to the point of being invisible